Independent Agency CEO: 'DOGE has broken into our building.'

Tax Act knows you probably don't need help filing taxes.

But if you get stuck, we have live experts you can talk to.

And who knows, you could hit it off and become long-term tax friends.

Staying up late at night, talking about deductions, refunds, personal exemptions.

Heck, you could even fall in love and create a little dependent of your own one day.

Or they could just answer your filing questions. Tax Act.
Let's get them over with. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News.
And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why Is This Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
Thanks, Drew at Home, for joining us this hour. Really happy to have you here this Monday night.
They said that by nightfall, the turnout was somewhere north of 325,000 people. Look at the size of this.
We knew in advance that this is going to be a big demonstration. The government knew it was coming.
The government had parked a whole bunch of tractors around their Capitol building in anticipation that there were going to be a lot of people there. And they thought the wall of tractors might put people off, I guess.
All through that afternoon, Saturday afternoon, you could see the crowd starting to build up in the Capitol City. But when they ended up at night at something like 300, look at that, 325,000 people in the streets, I think pretty much everybody was surprised.
This happened Saturday in Serbia, in a country that's only got about 6.6 million people. They got a third of a million people to show up at a single demonstration when they don't even have 7 million people in the entire country for their population.
If you want to compare that to us, if we got a similar proportion of our country's population to all show up for the same demonstration, that would be a demonstration of about 17 million people. Yeah, this is just massive.
This is Belgrade this weekend. Serbia's president is pro-Putin and pro-Trump.
The people of Serbia are not. And they are mobilizing in almost unbelievable numbers now to try to get rid of their president.
These are the biggest protests that have happened in that country in a generation. Absolutely massive.
President Donald Trump's son, Don Jr., the brunette, he visited Serbia last week and said that he thought the protests there were artificial, that they weren't real. The real Serbian people certainly wouldn't be protesting against their leadership.
The Serbian president posted photos of himself with Don Jr., like he was greeting a head of state or something. The Serbian president also ordered police in that country to raid the offices of four of the major civil society NGOs in that country.
The police went in without warrants. They went in armed, and they just took everything at those organizations.
The justification for them doing that was Donald Trump. Trump is trying to abolish USAID, trying to close down America's foreign aid agency.
In so doing, Trump's top campaign donor, Elon Musk, called USAID a criminal organization. Remember when he said that? That has had consequences.
Serbia's government is deciding that they're taking that literally. Well, it's Donald Trump's top campaign donor saying they're criminals.

They're taking that literally and essentially operating now on the assumption, or at least

on the pretext, that any organization that ever got any support from USAID must be a

criminal organization.

And so now they've got armed police raids and shutting those organizations down and the threat of, in fact, criminal charges. That said, the people of that country in absolutely massive numbers would seem to disagree.
What's going on in that country started as a group of students protesting against corruption and its consequences. In November, there was a disaster at a Serbian train station.
The concrete roof of a train station in Serbia collapsed and it killed 15 people. And that might not sound like a political event, but it has sparked this huge political movement because students after that disaster took to the streets and said reasonably that the reason that train station roof was improperly built and it therefore collapsed is because the government is corrupt.
And that's the kind of construction you get when the only criteria for getting a government contract is cronyism and bribery instead of actually knowing how to do the work. That is

the kind of accident you get when your terrible train station construction passes inspection and opens up to the public, not because it's actually safe or properly built, but because the necessary bribes were paid. Corrupt countries, oligarchic countries, autocratic countries are lousy countries.
Bad governance means bad standards of living, means bad economies, means worse lives for everybody except the people at the very top. And these students started demonstrating against their Putin and Trump style corrupt government in November.
And now they are turning out hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of their capital. And it is very possible that that government will fall.
Despite a friendly visit from Don Jr. Another 50,000 people turned out in Hungary this weekend.
Look at this. To protest against the Trump and Putin aligned dictator in that country, Viktor Orban.
Look at this crowd in Budapest on Saturday. Viktor Orban is the tool that Vladimir Putin is using to try to break apart the EU.
Viktor Orban has also provided the Trump movement in this country with much of its playbook for what they're doing to our country and to our government right now, firing as many civil servants as they can, discrediting, attacking, intimidating, ultimately trying to co-opt all of the media, attacking and trying to close down colleges and universities, discrediting and attacking judges and the court system. That is all Viktor Orban's playbook.
And the Trump movement credits him with all those good ideas which they are now trying to put in place in the United States.

Viktor Orban has been in power in his country for 15 years now. He has turned his country into an autocracy.
And although his family and his friends have become very, very, very rich, Hungary's economy is also trash now for everyone else. And so Hungary, in large numbers, Hungarians are turning out in shockingly large numbers

against him and in support of a rising up. else.
And so Hungary, in large numbers, Hungarians are turning out in shockingly large numbers

against him and in support of a rising opposition party that very well may beat him and remove him from office if he allows the next rounds of elections to happen in Hungary. Also this weekend in Romania and in the nation of Georgia, there were more huge anti-Putin, pro-Europe, large-scale protests.
Russia is accused in Romania of not only interfering in their last election, but also just outright trying to mount a military coup to oust the government there to instead install a pro-Russian, pro-Putin puppet regime.

Vice President J.D. Vance has taken up Russia's talking points against the Romanian government,

criticizing them, while the EU has taken steps to try to help Romania defend itself against Putin.

In the nation of Georgia, they also have a pro-Putin, pro-Russia authoritarian government,

even though much of the population of that country wants Georgia to be part of Europe instead. The opposition in Georgia, the pro-European, pro-Western opposition in Georgia has mounted increasingly large demonstrations in their capital city.
They've actually done a large-scale demonstration in their capital city every single day for the last 110 days.

Today was day 110. They are protesting the government itself.
They've, interestingly,

and I think importantly, been protesting against state TV, which is just relentless

Russian-style propaganda now. But they're mounting those demonstrations in the nation of Georgia

110 straight days now and counting. Lest you feel like we're all alone here.
We've got plenty of company. And they're doing it in massive, unified protests over there, particularly in huge numbers this weekend.
Here, we're doing it mostly in widely dispersed protests all over the place all the time. Some of them large, some of them small.
This was Boise, Idaho at the state capitol on Saturday. Deep, deep, deep red Idaho.
Look at this. Thousands of people turned out in Boise on Saturday protesting against Trump and what he and his top campaign donor are doing to the U.S.
government. This was in lower Manhattan this weekend.
What they call a die-in. Thousands of people protesting what Trump and Musk are doing and their threats to things like Medicaid and Medicare that tens of millions of Americans rely upon.
Protests against Trump and his top campaign donor are everywhere. People in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and in Olympia, Washington this weekend protesting at their state capitol buildings in support of veterans and against Trump's cuts to the VA.
People in Kansas City, Missouri this weekend saved the civil service. People in Reno, Nevada this weekend outside the office of Republican Congressman Mark Amaday.
And like I said, some of these protests are big. More big protests this weekend in Boston on Saturday.
In Tarrytown, New York, they said courage is contagious this weekend. But some of these protests are small, too, which actually shows its own kind of courage.
Little protests, little sort of sparky, spunky protests this weekend in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware and in Canton, Ohio. Even after President Trump and his top campaign donor and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, all started threatening Americans who don't support Elon Musk's car company.
They started threatening people that they'd be hit with terrorism charges or that these, you know, boycotting Tesla or protesting against Tesla was somehow specially illegal in a way that other forms of protests aren't, which is nonsense legally, but they issued the threats anyway. Even after those threats last week from Trump, from Musk, from Attorney General Pam Bondi, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of protests at Tesla dealerships all over the country this weekend.
There was a big one in Tucson, Arizona, another big one in Pasadena, California, another one in Seattle, Washington. But they were everywhere from Golden Valley, Minnesota, to Santa Rosa, California, to Loveland, Colorado, to Cleveland, Ohio, to Austin, Texas, to South Burlington, Vermont.
Protesters all over the country with this simple and now defiant message, just asking people simply, if you drive a Tesla, please sell it. And if you own stock in Tesla, please dump it.
Elon Musk is not a government official, right? He was never elected. And so this is the way people are trying to protest against Elon Musk and his role in our government.
We saw constituents of Republican Congressman Lloyd Smucker turn out in

Lancaster, Pennsylvania this weekend. They held essentially a mock town hall in the name of

Congressman Smucker. Since he won't hold any real ones with his actual constituents, they did it for

him. Same thing in Arizona.
Tucson area constituents of Republican Congressman Juan Siscomani held a

big town hall in his name because he won't weep with his constituents now at all. And so they met

Thank you. constituents of Republican Congressman Juan Siskimani held a big town hall in his name because he won't weep with his constituents now at all.
And so they met without him. They saved him a seat.
We also saw big and frankly angry demonstrations from Mahmoud Khalil and other permanent residents or people with valid visas who have nevertheless been arrested or deported. You've seen the five-alarm constitutional fire Trump set this weekend by appearing, at least, to defy a court order when he chose to disappear several hundred men out of the country without any legal process at all, apparently on the pretext that Trump can use wartime powers, even though we're not at war.
I say this was a five-alarm constitutional fire. There was a, over this matter, there was a big showdown on this in court this evening.
Tonight here live, we're going to be talking with the lawyer who got the court order that should have turned around those planes this weekend. It's the same lawyer who was arguing the case in court tonight.
We're going to be speaking with him live just after that court hearing in just a moment. You're going to want to see that.
But before we get to that, and that is an urgent story, there's one other story that is breaking just tonight. It's just broken.
It's just developed sort of within the past couple of hours. And I want to bring this to you first.
I'm not sure you've seen this elsewhere. You might remember a couple of weeks ago, we covered here on this show a sort of, in the grand scheme of things, a small scale confrontation in one small government office in Washington.
It's a little agency that you definitely haven't heard of. It's called the U.S.
Africa Development Foundation. And the reason we covered what was going on there is because something unusual happened there when Trump went after that office, went after that agency and tried to shut them down.
At that agency, they had a physical confrontation with people from Doge, from the Elon Musk austerity group. These would-be anonymous young men who work for Elon Musk.
They showed up. Do you remember the story? They showed up at that small government agency and they demanded to be let inside.
And that small government agency told them no. They said, we're an independent agency.
We are actually not part of the executive branch. You have no legal authority over us.
You have no legal right to come in. We do not invite you in.
We say you can't come in. You cannot come in.
And the Doge kids left when they were told they couldn't come in. But then the next day they came back with muscle.
They came back with people who said they were U.S. Marshals.
And we think those people were possibly armed. They were carrying guns.
Now, the U.S. Marshals Service consistently will not comment on this.
They will not say whether or not those people were actually U.S. Marshals.
We have some reporting that suggests they may not have been U.S. Marshals.
Nevertheless, they reportedly claimed to be U.S. Marshals.
And with those men, with those people claiming to be U.S. Marshals, the young men from Doge did physically force their way into that agency and then locked out all the actual staff and changed the locks.
So whether or not you, you know, your heartstrings are pulled by the fate of that individual agency, you can see why this might be a qualitatively more worrying thing than some of the other stuff we have seen. I mean, there are legitimate legal disputes as to whether this Doge group has any legal authority over some of these agencies that they're trying to get into so they can take over their systems and fire their staff and shut them down.
Those disputes are legal disputes that need to be sorted out legally. You can't just use guns to force your way in in the meantime as a means of settling that dispute.
If there's a legal dispute as to whether or not you are allowed in a U.S. government building and you cast that aside and say, we've got guns and that's the grounds on which we're coming in.
What that is, is an armed assault on the U.S. government.
That is an armed assault on a U.S. government office.
That's a break-in. That's call-the-cops territory.

That's barricade-the-doors territory.

I mean, at that point, what's to stop the little government agency from bringing in their own armed force, right? And then we shoot it out? that said, if there is an armed part of the u.s government somebody who's allowed you know whose agents are allowed to carry weapons who have badges who are allowed to use physical force as part of their job to the u.s marshals or anyone else if they are now working for doge against other parts of the government that you might think have an equal claim to their services and protection. Well, then if that's the case, Doge is something different than we thought it was.
Do they have an army? I mean, if the president has given his top campaign donor the ability to use physical force, the ability to use the force of arms against other parts of the U.S. government, we are in a different place than we thought we were.
Worrying possibilities were raised by that conflict at the U.S.-Africa Development Foundation when that unfolded a couple of weeks ago. That's why we covered it here on this show when it happened.
That led last week to a lawsuit being filed against the U.S. Marshals.
Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit last week asking in part why, quote, individuals associated with DOGE have repeatedly invoked threats to engage the U.S. Marshals Service when seeking questionable access to agency buildings and information.
So that happened at the U.S. Africa Development Foundation a couple weeks ago, led to the lawsuit against the U.S.
Marshals demanding information from the Marshals last week. Well, now tonight it has led to another physical confrontation.
And this time the agency in question actually did call the cops. In this case, it's something called the U.S.
Institute of Peace. It works on things like research in conflict zones and training future diplomats.
It was created by Congress during the Reagan administration. It was created in 1984.
But it is not an official part of the U.S. government.
It does not act in the name of the U.S. government.
It is a separate institution. Nevertheless, on Friday, representatives from Doge showed up unannounced at their building.
And they showed up unannounced, this time not with somebody claiming to be a U.S. Marshal.
This time they showed up with FBI agents? Wait, the FBI works for Doge? They demanded entry into the U.S. Institute of Peace.
The Doge team was reportedly met by lawyers for the institute who informed them, quote, of the Institute's private and independent status as a non-executive branch agency. They told them they could not come in.
The Doge representatives on Friday then departed. That was Friday.
But now today, apparently it has come to a different ending. We got this alarming quote from the CEO of that independent organization tonight.
Quote, Doge has broken into our building. The New York Times reports, quote, the U.S.
Institute for Peace called the D.C. police on the Musk team members in an effort to stop them from trespassing because the Institute has control of its own building and the land it sits on.
But instead, the DC police allowed them to enter and kicked out the Institute's officials. FBI agents, reportedly, and the local police are being used by one government agency as an armed force against another part of the government, another government agency that controls its own building and that says you can't come in.
What's going on here? And how do we figure it out? Joining us now is somebody who has been trying to pry loose some of the truth of what's going on here. Sky Perriman is the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which sued the U.S.
Marshals Service last week, asking why Doge was repeatedly invoking the marshals while trying to force their way into various buildings in Washington. Ms.
Perriman, thanks very much for joining us. I appreciate it.
Thanks for having me. So we've been trying to follow this as it has been unfolding.
It's sort of dribs and drabs, and now this dramatic unfolding tonight. Let me just ask if there's anything that you know about this that either contradicts what I just said or can further advance the story.
Well, I think what you said is concerning, and five alarm, I think is what you called it, as it is, is what we're hearing. We're hearing concerning reports tonight from people who have been inside the Institute of Peace.
And this is really, unfortunately, a pattern. It sounds unbelievable.
It sounds terrifying because it is, but this is becoming a pattern. We've seen this at other agencies, including the African Development Foundation, where we also have litigation pending on behalf of its chair, who, by the way, is a Republican that is having to sue because the president is unlawfully removing him and there was a confrontation.
And now we have this potentially armed confrontation today. This is not America, but this is what is happening in 2025.
The lawsuit that you've already filed concerning the Marshal Service, are you seeking information from the Marshal Service as to whether or not their personnel have been seconded to doge somehow? Are you trying to find out under what authority whoever those people were might have been operating when they used force to get into that property? Yes, we actually have been trying to seek that information from the government under the Freedom of Information Act, which you've talked about on your show before, that entitles all Americans to have this information. And the government has refused to provide it.
And so that's why we are now again in federal court seeking to have disclosure of communications, of documents. That's one of many cases that we have pending right now to really understand what's happening with Doge, with Elon Musk, by the way, because no one voted for Elon Musk or for this sort of force.
I know that Democracy Forward, your organization, is involved in a lot of litigation against the president and Doge and what they're doing to try to dismantle the government.

I do want to ask, though, if there is precedent for this type of controversy, this type of dispute, I feel like when I cover things in other countries, one of the things I watch for to try to understand what kind of country that is, is when physical force is used to settle legal or political disputes, when guys with guns show up in the middle of what I would otherwise expect to be something that was a subject of a, you know, summons. I don't know of anything else like this before.
I profess I might be ignorant to this part of D.C. dramatic history.
But do you know of any precedent for something like this, for one part of the government using armed physical force against another? This is completely unprecedented. And when you talk to experts that study societies that are in decline, democracies that are in decline, you find these kind of skirmishes between different parts of the government, sometimes with force.
And so it's highly concerning this is happening in the United States in 2025. That is why our team at Democracy Forward, of course, is in court every day challenging these actions, trying to help the American people figure out what is going on with their own government.
But this is quite concerning and unprecedented. Sky Perriman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, you are a very, very, very busy woman.
And this is a very busy organization that you are running. Thank you for taking time out tonight to help us understand this.
We appreciate it. Thanks for having me.
All right. More news ahead here tonight.
Stay with us. Stay connected with the MSNBC app, bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.
Watch your favorite shows live, read live blogs and in-depth essays, and listen to coverage as it unfolds. Go beyond the what to understand the why.
Download the app now at msnbc.com slash app. The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed, and presidencies are defined.
And for Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week. Now is the time, so we're going to do it.
Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time. How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country? The Rachel Maddow Show, weeknights at 9 p.m.
Eastern on MSNBC. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter.
Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows. I do think it's worth being very clear-eyed, very realistic about what's going on here.

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning.

Get the best of MSNBC all in one place.

Sign up for MSNBC Daily at MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc.com.
So tonight we are right in the middle of a very important clash between the Trump administration and the courts, and it has been rapidly developing and escalating over the past 48 hours or so. As we talked about on Friday Night Show, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is a law that is a wartime law in this country.
It's used during wartime only. The last time it was used was during World War II when it was used to put Japanese Americans in internment camps, something for which the U.S.
government later apologized and paid reparations under Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, in an unannounced written statement this weekend, Donald Trump claimed that that was the law he would use as the basis for deporting people who he determined to be members of a Venezuelan gang.
He would use that law to deport people immediately without any due process or any legal consideration at all. Organizations, including the ACLU, sued immediately to block him from using that 1700s law.
The chief judge of the Washington, D.C. Federal District Court held an emergency hearing on the ACLU's lawsuit late Saturday afternoon.
And at that hearing, the ACLU's lawyer, Lee Galearn, told that judge that it was his understanding that planes were about to take off or possibly had taken off during the

hearing carrying hundreds of men out of this country toward a prison in El Salvador.

There was a Trump administration lawyer there representing the government.

That lawyer said he couldn't give the judge any information about that at all so again this is an emergency hearing late on saturday and the judge ended up basically saying listen there are difficult questions of law here and these are going to have to be worked out in the courts for now i am blocking the trump administration from deporting people under this law from the 1700s they are blocked from using this law as the basis for these deportations until we can hash out these legal questions. So the judge actually said to the Trump administration lawyer, quote, you shall inform your clients, meaning inform the Trump administration of this immediately.
You should inform them that any plane containing these folks that's going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States. Those people need to be returned to the United States.
Quote, this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately. By all appearances, that order was not complied with immediately.
NBC News reports that two flights carrying these men were in transit when the judge issued his ruling, but they did not turn around. They continued on their way.
The Washington Post reports that a third plane was still on the ground at the time of that ruling. It hadn't taken off in Texas until after that judge's ruling had been issued.
The next morning, the pro-Trump president of El Salvador announced that his country had accepted 238 men from the United States. He posted a slickly produced three-minute propaganda video of some of these men being sort of manhandled and pushed around and all of them having their heads shaved by armed Salvadoran military or security forces.
President Trump happily posted the video as well. The president of El Salvador says these men will be jailed in a massive prison in his country for as many years as the U.S.
wants to pay him to keep them there. They have not been charged with crimes and thereby sentenced to serve this time.
they're just being locked up indefinitely at the pleasure of El Salvador. At the White House press briefing today, Trump's press secretary listed all the crimes these men ostensibly committed, but a senior Trump administration official tells NBC News that these men have not necessarily been convicted of any of these crimes.
Still, though, they're in prison now in El Salvador, indefinitely having been disappeared out of this country with no process whatsoever. We don't even know who these guys are.
They keep saying they're Venezuelan gang members. We don't even know if they're Venezuelans, let alone gang members.
Unsurprisingly, the federal judge who held that hearing on Saturday where he made it abundantly clear that nobody was supposed to be sent to El Salvador, he called a new hearing today to assess whether the Trump administration had knowingly violated his court order. Quote, a federal judge pressed a Justice Department lawyer today over why the Trump administration did not comply with his order to temporarily halt deportations under an 18th century law and asked why key information about the flights was being withheld over the weekend.
In a tense hearing, the judge summarized the administration's position on his court order Saturday as, quote, we don't care, we'll do what we want. Trump administration lawyer at this evening's hearing still refused to provide any information about the flights.
And so the judge has now ordered another hearing for tomorrow at noon, at which the Trump administration must give him the information he wants or explain the legal rationale for why they are not giving it to him. And if they don't, then...
Well, then. then hanging in the balance immediately is the fate of untold numbers of people who donald trump may try to send to this salvadoran prison president of el salvador has said openly that he'd be happy to put u.s citizens there too but also hanging in the balance is whether the trump administration is considering not just trying to wheedle their way out of it, but whether they're considering openly flouting a court order, which is a very fast trip down a very short street in terms of how much of a republic we still are.
Joining us now is Lee Galer, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, who has been facing off with the Trump administration in these court hearings. Mr.
Galer, I know that you haven't slept a wink and that you are very busy and under a ton of stress. Thank you for making time to be here.
Thanks for having me, Rachel. Did I explain any of that? Go ahead.
No, no, no. Sorry.
You got it all correct and I think set it up nicely. And I would just start by saying that, you know, you and I have talked about a lot of big issues over the years.
I think right now this is one of the biggest that we've ever discussed. And for two reasons.
One is the use of this wartime authority is so unprecedented and so dangerous during peacetime that we all need to be concerned. because right now it's Venezuelans who are being tagged with it and sent off to a Salvadoran prison without any due process whatsoever.
But if the courts allow this, it could be one group after another that's just whisked away and put in a Salvadoran prison with no access to anybody. And, you know, these Venezuelan men who have been sentenced to El Salvador, as the video already suggests, are in real danger.
But the second reason this is so big is what you also talked about, is beyond just the Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration seems to be basically saying the federal court should stay out of their business. But, of course, our entire country is premised on the idea that we have three equal branches of government and both Congress and the president will listen to the federal courts.
We were very concerned that the administration just simply ignored, violated the court's order to turn their planes around. And so we told the judge we were concerned about it, given all the facts.
He said, let's get in here for a hearing. We left that hearing even more concerned than we were initially.
I mean, the administration tried to first say, well, we didn't think you meant this and that. But obviously, they clearly understood what the order meant.
They're basically just saying, don't interfere with us. And they even went as far as going to the D.C.
Circuit a few hours before the hearing to try and get the judge thrown off the case. I mean, this is really extraordinary.
And what I said in the hearing was I wanted to be very careful with my words, but I felt like although a lot of people throw around the term constitutional crisis, we were moving in that direction if the administration is really not going to allow federal courts to do their job. What options does the judge have if the judge concludes the worst here, that the administration is deliberately flouting his order? What could the judge do to bring the administration into compliance? Yeah, so I think that's the right question.
So the judge will have all the normal types of sanctions and contempt orders that he can issue. But, you know, truthfully, we are much more concerned with our clients who are now sitting in El Salvador in prison.
Generally speaking, a federal court cannot order another country to do something. we think this may be different because we actually think that El Salvador is almost like serving as a private prison with the U.S.
footing the bill. And so we were going to, for sure, if he finds that they violated the order, we are for sure going to ask him to get these men back because there's no question the United States government has the leverage to do it.
And we're going to say there are still constructively in U.S. custody.
But, you know, that will be our first concern. Whatever other sanctions or contempt orders we ask for, I think, will be of secondary concern.
I mean, honestly, that without any explanation about whatever special relationship we have with El Salvador to be able to do this, you think about the other leaders around the world that Trump considers himself to be in common cause with and considers to be like of his marching order. And if they do this, why aren't they then going to send other groups of people in this country to Hungary or to Serbia or to North Korea or to Russia? I mean, picking a random country abroad and saying, well, they're out of our, they agreed to take these people.
We sent them with zero due process. We just rounded them up and sent them.
And this other country will do with them what they will. I mean, there's no bottom to that once it starts.
Oh, for sure. And what, and what we have said is two things.
One is that this wartime authority cannot be used because Congress has said very, very clearly it can only be used where the United States is in a declared war with a foreign nation, a foreign nation or a foreign nation is invading us. If the president can just simply say, well, every time we think there's a criminal group that's dangerous, no matter what nationality, we're going to just send them off.
That's very dangerous. But the other part of this is that there's zero due process.
So let's just assume for the moment that the Alien Enemies Act can be used against a non-state actor. You know, and we're clear that it can't be.
But even if it could, you have to give these individuals some due process to show that they're not part of the gang and then therefore don't fall within the proclamation. Our five named plaintiffs dispute that they're part of the gang.
I think we're going to see people when they're finally their families are finally reached and they've seen photos and videos of these men being taken to El Salvador come forward. And we're going to see people show that they're not gang members.
And, you know, we don't know for sure who is who because the government did this all in secret. But I would just caution people not to buy in immediately to the government's characterization of all these people.
I mean, think about Guantanamo. They said these are the worst of the worst we're sending to Guantanamo.
It quickly, very quickly became clear that many of the people didn't even have a criminal conviction, much less a serious criminal conviction. And so I think we all need to take a beat on whether we think, you know, how, whether we buy into this characterization, but they certainly shouldn't be entitled to a hearing to show they're not part of the gang.
Right. Yeah.
Legal Earn, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants Rights Project. I realize this fight is very much joined and this is still developing and you got another hearing tomorrow.
Thanks for helping us understand it tonight and keep us surprised. Thanks, Rachel.
All right. More news ahead here tonight.
Stay with us. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News.
And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why Is This Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
MSNBC presents a new original podcast hosted by Jen Psaki. Each week, she and her guests explore how the Democratic Party is facing this political moment and where it's headed next.
There's probably both messaging and policy issues. But as you look to kind of where the Democratic Party is, do you think it's more a messaging issue, more a policy issue? The Blueprint with Jen Psaki.
New episodes drop every Monday. Listen now.
So, this is a story that we have highlighted in recent days on our sort of growing list of Trump reversals. Things Trump tried to do, and then he had to back off once people got wind of what he was doing.
Either he couldn't stand it being publicized, couldn't stand the criticism, couldn't defend it. It was too something.
And even though they wanted to do it, they had to change their mind. In this case, it was about Social Security.
You might remember us covering this story last week. They wanted to cut the phone line that you call if you need help or you have questions about your Social Security.
Now, Social Security is for elderly and disabled people. So killing off the phone number that those folks use to call the Social Security office when they have a problem or a question or they need to file a claim, that would be a serious blow to the actual way that agency serves the people it serves.
So the Washington Post published that story that they're going to cut the social security phone line. Hours later, they reversed the plan.
They They scrapped the plan. Oh, geez, that was a terrible headline.
People really didn't like the sound of that. Okay, we won't do that anymore.
So we covered that reversal last week here on the show. Apparently, they're not done messing with Social Security and this part of it, though.
Because today, the newsletter Information first and then Axios and then The Washington Post, all these outlets ultimately obtained a memo that is outlining their new plan to cut off the Social Security phone service a different way. This came out the day after that reversal, right? They floated this plan or The Washington Post found out about this plan to cut off the phone service.
It got publicized. People freaked out.
They reversed the plan. The next day, they come up with this other way to cut the phone service.
This internal memo outlines a plan to add a new quote-unquote anti-fraud step that the agency acknowledges would force millions of Social Security recipients to file in person at a field office rather than over the phone. And yes, those are the same field offices.
They are closing all over the country. The internal memo about this change estimates that this one change would send 75,000 to 85,000 people a week to Social Security's already understaffed, backlogged, in-person field offices, many of which they are closing, right? Trump and Musk are laying off 7,000 Social Security staffers.
They are closing dozens of field offices, but they nevertheless are still trying to kill the phone line, which they say will send 75,000 to 85,000 elderly and disabled people into essentially forced appointments at those field offices by design. Field offices where it already takes more than a month to get an appointment, and that's even before they start closing down dozens of them.
The reporter who got that scoop joins us next. Stay with us.
An internal Social Security Administration memo sent Thursday last week details proposed changes to the claims process that would debilitate the agency, cause significant processing delays, and prevent many Americans from applying for or receiving benefits. The biggest change contemplated in the memo is to require internet identity proofing for any benefit claims made over the phone.
If a social security recipient is unable to utilize internet ID proofing, customers will be required to visit a field office to provide in-person identity documentation. Many people served by the social security Administration cannot access the internet.
Under the new system, this would force these populations to visit an office to have their claims processed. The memo estimates it would require 75,000 to 85,000 in-person visitors per week to Social Security offices to implement this policy.
Social Security offices currently do not have the resources to handle an influx of in-person appointments of this size. They're cutting 7,000 staffers.
They're shutting dozens of field offices. They're ending in-person services at some offices altogether.
And even before those changes take effect, Social Security offices no longer accept walk-ins. And right now, the wait time for an appointment averages over one month.
Joining us now is Judd Legum. He's writer of the independent newsletter, Popular Information.
He's the first person to obtain this memo from Social Security. Judd, thanks very much for being with us.
Thank you for this reporting. Oh, well, thanks for having me, Rachel.
This just seems like, I know we've heard of a lot of changes and proposed changes at Social Security that are freaking a lot of people out, people who are recipients of Social Security in particular. This seems so unbelievably impractical to me.
It's hard for me to believe that this is a real prospect that's still on the table. Do you think that it is? Yes, I know that it is based on the people that I'm talking to on Social Security.
This is this is something that's moving through Social Security very aggressively. And the people who are concerned about this memo, who brought it to light, believe that it is an effort to break the agency.
And this is a huge influx of people to these offices that are already under strain, that are now getting, as you mentioned, many of them are getting closed. There's just no way for them to deal with the number of people who would now need to come into the office to verify their identification under this new proposal.
Is there any corresponding sort of implementation memo, right? If they're saying internally and officially at Social Security that this would result in 80,000 more people needing to use field offices per week, is there also implementation work being done to scale up the capacity of the field offices to be able to do that. No, in fact, it's just the opposite.

They're closing down the field offices. One of the things that's remarkable as they're taking away the ability to do the things you need to do, like file a claim, which is probably the most

important thing over the phone, they're actually converting some of these field offices to phone

only. So they're taking away the in-person services.
So I think this is an effort to really strain the agency beyond what it can handle. And one thing I want to note is 75,000 to 85,000 people coming to the office, those are actually the lucky ones because as Social Security kind of elliptically notes in this memorandum, there are vulnerable populations who cannot get physically to an office because they are elderly or disabled in a way that prevents them from traveling.
Sometimes you have to travel over 100 miles to get to a local office. It's not always around the corner.
And that's even before they start shutting down dozens of them. Judd Legum, writer of the independent newsletter, Popular Information.
We subscribe here at The Rachel Mowder Show, and it's a really great resource. You're doing great work there, Judd.
Thank you. Thanks.
We'll be right back. All right, that's going to do it for me for now.
I will see you again tomorrow and every night this week at 9 p.m. Eastern.
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free.
Plus, ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content,

including Why Is This Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.